4 ms·

Check out this building in SOMA, it was finished, sat empty waiting for permits for 2 years because the City sucks, and during that time the condo market crashe

Check out this building in SOMA, it was finished, sat empty waiting for permits for 2 years because the City sucks, and during that time the condo market crashed and so now the builder had to hand it back to the lender. Full brand new condo building one block from Oracle Park with like 24 luxury condos in it for 16 mil now: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/16/brand-new-san-francisco-condo-complex-handed-back-to-lender/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/16/brand-new-san-francisco-co...

adamredwoods 3y ago
By now I would think most builders can expect 1-2 years for obtaining permits. Not ideal, but it's similar in other large metros.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > By now I would think most builders can expect 1-2 years for obtaining permits It takes 6 to 12 months in New York [1]. In the meantime, 90-day temporary COIs are issued. Permitting hell is a California specialty. [1] https://propertyclub.nyc/article/certificate-of-occupancy-nyc https://propertyclub.nyc/article/certificate-of-occupancy-ny...
- jen20 3y ago
  That is certainly not the case in Austin. There's no reason SF can't replicate that if they even try a little bit.
  - lazide 3y ago
    SF has been actively tarpitting permits for a very long time. The last thing they want is speedy or effective.
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  "San Francisco's process for issuing building permits is notorious for being one of the most cumbersome in the country. The city takes an average of ten months to issue a permit, compared to six months in Los Angeles and New York City." https://starboardcre.com/editorials/governor-newsom-wants-to-know-why-it-takes-so-long-to-get-a-building-permit-in-san-francisco/#:~:text=San%20Francisco's%20process%20for%20issuing,Angeles%20and%20New%20York%20City https://starboardcre.com/editorials/governor-newsom-wants-to....
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
They built without permits? And the bank just gets to take it back rather than the govt requiring demolition?
- vel0city 3y ago
  After construction one typically needs to get a certificate of occupancy, a last round of inspections to ensure things were actually built to code before people move in. The article mentions this certificate.
- Dig1t 3y ago
  Are you saying that it’s logical, or sane, to demolish a brand new building, built to spec, because the bureaucratic stamps took place out of order?
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  Source? Pretty sure thats not what happened in this case
api 3y ago
San Francisco has long struck me as the worst run major city in the US. Not just incompetent but almost malicious. Lots of right wingers like to make it a right/left thing but no, I just think SF seems to be it’s own special snowflake. There are plenty of cities and towns run by left wing types that are much better run in every way. The impression I get is of a rent extraction cartel that somehow pretends to be super woke and progressive and plays the local politics like a fiddle. The hordes of homeless are a problem they both caused and benefit from since it offers them an opportunity for theatrical altruism and probably a lot of corruption and graft of funds via dodgy non profits. On that condo building: so it got built then got rug pulled? Look into who buys this distressed property at auction and then see what happens to it. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if it’s someone with connections. “Uh oh, someone got something built! We’ll fix that.”
- aurareturn 3y ago
  The rental market didn’t cause the homelessness. Most homeless people weren’t renting in SF before they got homeless. These are the people who just gave up in leave. Has nothing to do with rent prices or housing prices. Truth is, SF is attractive to homeless people because it has nice weather all year round and the politicians tolerate them.
  - addicted 3y ago
    Unfortunately your “truth” is almost certainly false. Actual research shows the majority of homelessness in CA is a result of unaffordable housing and there is no mass migration of homeless to CA (thst also doesn’t make sense…with not even enough money to afford a house in a city where you may have connections and at least know the lay of the land, why would you move to a significantly more expensive city where you know no one and don’t know anything about it…and even if you think the weather is such a draw, then why are there any homeless in SF? Why haven’t they all moved to LA?). https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/06/425646/california-statewide-study-investigates-causes-and-impacts-homelessness https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/06/425646/california-statewid... > Contrary to myths of homeless migration, most were Californians: 90% of participants lost their last housing in California and 75% of participants live in the same county as where they were last housed. > The study found that for most of the participants, the cost of housing had simply become unsustainable. Participants reported a median monthly household income of $960 in the six months prior to their homelessness, and most believed that either rental subsidies or one-time financial help would have prevented their homelessness.

adamredwoods 3y ago

By now I would think most builders can expect 1-2 years for obtaining permits. Not ideal, but it's similar in other large metros.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> By now I would think most builders can expect 1-2 years for obtaining permits It takes 6 to 12 months in New York [1]. In the meantime, 90-day temporary COIs are issued. Permitting hell is a California specialty. [1] https://propertyclub.nyc/article/certificate-of-occupancy-nyc https://propertyclub.nyc/article/certificate-of-occupancy-ny...
jen20 3y ago
That is certainly not the case in Austin. There's no reason SF can't replicate that if they even try a little bit.
- lazide 3y ago
  SF has been actively tarpitting permits for a very long time. The last thing they want is speedy or effective.
iancmceachern 3y ago
"San Francisco's process for issuing building permits is notorious for being one of the most cumbersome in the country. The city takes an average of ten months to issue a permit, compared to six months in Los Angeles and New York City." https://starboardcre.com/editorials/governor-newsom-wants-to-know-why-it-takes-so-long-to-get-a-building-permit-in-san-francisco/#:~:text=San%20Francisco's%20process%20for%20issuing,Angeles%20and%20New%20York%20City https://starboardcre.com/editorials/governor-newsom-wants-to....

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago

They built without permits? And the bank just gets to take it back rather than the govt requiring demolition?

vel0city 3y ago
After construction one typically needs to get a certificate of occupancy, a last round of inspections to ensure things were actually built to code before people move in. The article mentions this certificate.
Dig1t 3y ago
Are you saying that it’s logical, or sane, to demolish a brand new building, built to spec, because the bureaucratic stamps took place out of order?
iancmceachern 3y ago
Source? Pretty sure thats not what happened in this case

api 3y ago

San Francisco has long struck me as the worst run major city in the US. Not just incompetent but almost malicious. Lots of right wingers like to make it a right/left thing but no, I just think SF seems to be it’s own special snowflake. There are plenty of cities and towns run by left wing types that are much better run in every way. The impression I get is of a rent extraction cartel that somehow pretends to be super woke and progressive and plays the local politics like a fiddle. The hordes of homeless are a problem they both caused and benefit from since it offers them an opportunity for theatrical altruism and probably a lot of corruption and graft of funds via dodgy non profits. On that condo building: so it got built then got rug pulled? Look into who buys this distressed property at auction and then see what happens to it. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if it’s someone with connections. “Uh oh, someone got something built! We’ll fix that.”

aurareturn 3y ago
The rental market didn’t cause the homelessness. Most homeless people weren’t renting in SF before they got homeless. These are the people who just gave up in leave. Has nothing to do with rent prices or housing prices. Truth is, SF is attractive to homeless people because it has nice weather all year round and the politicians tolerate them.
- addicted 3y ago
  Unfortunately your “truth” is almost certainly false. Actual research shows the majority of homelessness in CA is a result of unaffordable housing and there is no mass migration of homeless to CA (thst also doesn’t make sense…with not even enough money to afford a house in a city where you may have connections and at least know the lay of the land, why would you move to a significantly more expensive city where you know no one and don’t know anything about it…and even if you think the weather is such a draw, then why are there any homeless in SF? Why haven’t they all moved to LA?). https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/06/425646/california-statewide-study-investigates-causes-and-impacts-homelessness https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/06/425646/california-statewid... > Contrary to myths of homeless migration, most were Californians: 90% of participants lost their last housing in California and 75% of participants live in the same county as where they were last housed. > The study found that for most of the participants, the cost of housing had simply become unsustainable. Participants reported a median monthly household income of $960 in the six months prior to their homelessness, and most believed that either rental subsidies or one-time financial help would have prevented their homelessness.